SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kalaimagal Sabha Uruppinargal Pathukappu Sangam, Coimbatore – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 6654, 43650 of 2006, 22557 to 22571 of 2011
Decided On : 01-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R. Singaravelan, V.S. Jagadeesan, S. Selvathirumurugan, R. Suresh Kumar, K.M. Vijayan.
For the Respondents: C. Kathiravan, I. Abrar Md. Abdullah, T.R. Rajaraman, P. Chinnadurai, K.R. Hariharan.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 - Section 34B, 34A, 35 and 36 - Registered Society - Poor Investors - Litigations - Unable To Get Back Money - Whether Special Officer appointed by Government extended his co-operation with his team of officers for other Joint Receivers in working out above scheme or not - Whether Court can monitor administration of a registered Society, wherein disputed questions of fact are raised between parties – Held, Answer is ‘No’ even as per statement of one of Joint Receivers - It is brought to notice of this court that Special Officer has not co-operated for purpose of implementing orders passed by this Court in year 1999 - This Court is of concrete opinion that High Court is not expected to venture into monitoring Administration of this nature as it will create doubt in minds of people in general regarding manner in which properties are dealt with by Receivers - It became unnecessary for High Court, more specifically, under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Receiver is directed to obtain audited statements from Chartered Accountant, to furnish accounts, income tax particulars, etc., and handover same within a period of six weeks to Special Officer - Any illegality, irregularity or malpractices are traced out or identified or brought to notice of Special Officer appointed, then all necessary actions are directed to be initiated against all concerned by following procedures as contemplated under law - Receiver appointed by this Court stands relieved with effect from date on which, administration of “Kalaimagal Sabha” is handed over to Special Officer - Consequently, all memos filed by Receiver became unnecessary and no further orders are required in respect of any such memo filed - Petitions disposed of.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to divide the lands in the name of Kalaimagal Sabha on the basis of its registration value or market value and allot the same in favour of the members of Petitioner Association on the basis of the amount invested by them in Kalaimagal Sabha.

1. The genesis of the batch of writ petitions on hand emanated from a registered Society “Kalaimagal Sabha” and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 514 of 1999 dated 30.03.1999. The untold agony of 5,33,356 members of the said Kalaimagal Sabha resulted in institution of litigations and unfortunately even after lapse of 22 years, these poor investors, who deposited their hard earned money are unable to get back money and still legal battle is on and on.

2. Let us not go back and conduct post mortem in respect of the black areas with reference to the actions, inactions, omissions, commissions made by the parties and court receivers. The endeavour of this Court at this length of time is to adopt a practical and pragmatic approach and to ensure that the untold agony of these 5,33,356 members are redressed to the extent possible and in the manner known to law.

3. The ‘Kalaimagal Sabha’ was registered and commenced its activities with a laudable object of collecting deposits and returning the same along with interest by conducting certain real estate business activities. Huge amount of money was collected from these 5,33,356 members. The money collected were invested in purchase of immovable properties not only across the State of Tamil Nadu but also outside the State of Tamil Nadu, more specifically in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Delhi and Kerala.

4. The Society, namely, Kalaimagal Sabha committed certain irregularities and mismanagement in dealing with the funds of the Society. Thus, complaints were filed by the members and the Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to appoint a Special Officer to manage the affairs of the Society as the complaints received were found to be serious and the financial implications are wider.

5. At that point of time, one Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 514 of 1999 claiming that he is a member of the Society, Kalaimagal Sabha and sought to quash the notice issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for appointment of Special Officer and to direct the first respondent for appointment of Retired High Court Judge as the custodian to take control of funds and assets of the Society intended for the benefit of the members and to distribute the same either in the shape of funds or property or both to the members of the Society to prove their entitlement.

6. This Court considered the issues and Thiru. N. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate [Retired District Judge] Chennai, Thiru. S. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate, Chennai and the Special Officer appointed to the Society were appointed as Joint Receivers to take charge of the properties so purchased by the Kalaimagal Sabha, a registered Society as well as the funds available and the entire accounts and to take care of the affairs of the Society for the purpose of distributing the outcome of the properties purchased for the benefit of its members from the sale proceeds of the same and the funds available in the Society for that purpose.

7. The procedures were also formulated for the purpose of functioning of these Joint Receivers. The procedures formulated would reveal that the Joint Receivers are directed to sell the properties on the basis of the time bound program, either by public auction or calling for tenders. The Joint Receivers should get prior approval from this Court before even confirming any such offer. A specific direction was issued to the Special Officer to render full co-operation with his team of officers for the other Joint Receivers in working out the above scheme.

8. This Court in the year 1999 while passing orders in the said writ petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top